Saturday, September 21, 2013

The healthcare debate moves to the next round. It is improbable that Congress will be successful in slowing the train, even though a growing number of Americans are hoping that they might. In this great time of uneasiness, some solace may be found in turning to the wisdom of our founding fathers.

Let's pretend that Thomas Jefferson is currently amoung us. True, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't see the relevance. But a lot of distraught Independents including Millennials would. Jefferson's take on the "Affordable Health Care Act" would be as follows:

"To propel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

No doubt, Pelosi, Chris Mathews, Rachael Maddow and friends would say, "Get over it Tom!"

However, there is much wisdom in Jefferson's statement. For starters, it is never popular to tax unwilling people. Pelosi and friends would counter in reminding all that the bill did pass and was signed into law in 2010. Never mind that the reconciliation process was needed for final Senate passage. It doesn't matter that the Supreme Court later determined it to be a "tax." Who cares if upwards of 70% of the country is now against immediate implementation!

Some of the strongest advocates of Obamacare are Americans paying little or no taxes. Jefferson had a position on this:

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those willing to work and give to those who would not."

Opponents are vocal in the fact that this legislation grows the government to historic levels. In fact, Obamacare will account for "one-sixth" of the overall economy. Much was buried in the 2700 page proposal. In the end, it became understood that the "Affordable Health Care Act," increased the size and scope of government in a manner that amounted to unprecedented intrusion into the lives of Americans. Jefferson's probable opinion on A.F.H.C.?

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." He added, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Naturally Barack Obama anticipated resistance. His solution was to increase the size of the Internal Revenue Service. This accomplished, he could then instruct them to forcefully collect from those unwilling to succumb. Many if not most Americans fear the I.R.S.. The thought of the President using this unpopular branch of government to enforce a tax opposed by the majority of Americans is seen as strangely un-American. Maybe, this is because it it just that: Un-American.

To this, Jefferson's response would have been, "when people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."

The question becomes, "how much will the American people take?" The administration fears, "not much more." As a result, efforts are in motion to disarm America. Jefferson was very clear on this notion:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." His rationale was specific: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government."

A lot of alarmed Americans have seen the signs and are secretly beginning preparation for the long awaited house-to-house rat war survivalists have predicted for decades. While both liberals and moderates may scoff the thought, we must remember that there are roughly 270 million firearms accounted for in America. It is believed that many more may be unaccounted for. They are in the hands of an estimated 30% of the population.

Such apocalyptic references are greeted with disdain, even spite by the milk toast mainstream. But Jefferson may have seen it differently. He concluded, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The question that arises is "how was Barack Obama re-elected" if his policies are so unpopular and his methodology so suspect? Perhaps is because they were neither unpopular or suspect to certain parts of the country.

The great megapolis of the Northeast has become a bastion of American liberal ideology. Much relates to the spoils system and the amount of American tax dollars that have been funneled their way. The counter argument amounts to "how many tax dollars" in proportion are sent to Washington by Americans living in these states. Jefferson's observation was quite profound:

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."

Ironically, the nation's greatest financial interests reside in the Northeast. G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" recounts the growth of a banking cartel, outside the framework of the U.S. Government that has systematically stolen trillions from the American people. It began in 1910. 108 years earlier, Thomas Jefferson issued a warning that amounted to prophecy:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property- until their children wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered."

The end result has been a multi-trillion dollar deficit that continues to grow with each passing hour. Politicians have talked about solutions. But the end result has been to "kick the proverbial can" down the road. In other words, let future generations deal with the problem. Jefferson's position was very clear on this practice:

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

Including the war that could ultimately engulf America.

Few dare think of this outcome. But don't rule it out. Here's why.

We have a tiny group of international financiers who have gained control of most of the planet's wealth. The have gained advantage in this country largely with the help of non-tax paying Americans. The are literally banking on the rest of America doing nothing.

What about the 30% who control the firearms? Wouldn't the military be more than a match for them? Depends. The military is sworn to defend the Constitution. If it is perceived that the Constitution has been compromised, who knows!

Of course, there would be a much better way. Could not these cartels merely give back what was stolen?

There are currently eight banking cartels headquartered in the Northeast and Europe. Their cumulative net worth exceeds 100 trillion dollars. Nobody knows for certain how they amassed this kind of wealth.

Returning that which was stolen would probably be Jefferson's solution. The common man was always on his radar. History reflects his on going argument with Alexander Hamilton regarding "if" the common man should be trusted with governing latitude.

Perhaps these emerging Millennials may make the final determination. They will be expected to shoulder the burden of an aging population of Social Security recipients. Not to mention a massive debt! Many are shackled by currently unforgivable student loan debt. What happens if they say "nyet" to perpetual thrawl designation?

I sincerely believe that the answer is "not if, but when!" The question may be "how?"

Thomas Jefferson was one of our greatest Presidents. In rediscovering his memoirs, it is easy to conclude that the country is on the wrong track. As times become increasingly grim, reformers will be aided by two factors: (a) A large number of the older Americans who would discourage reform will die out and (b) the left will go too far, insuring a massive counterstroke by the right.

Both are happening as we speak!

Griffin described our currency as "fiat money." As he explained, "we have roughly one-half trillion in gold at Fort Knox. Yet our debt is 17 trillion?" His book described in great detail how our "money" was actually nothing but credit; a promise to be paid. If someone stops paying, the entire house of cards will fall!

The good news is, America has massive wealth under the ground and on top of it. Not to mention the resources and ingenuity of our people. True, the latter has been downplayed in recent times by the Council of Foreign Relations and other globalist entities. But it does remain, a potent force ready to reassume control.

Two things will be necessary. In Thomas Jefferson, we have one of them: a spiritual founder. His insights reflect the wisdom necessary to correct those things that went wrong.

What remains is the need for a contemporary leader. Is there someone out there who can re-introduce America to these Jeffersonian principles? More importantly, do we have a statesman who can restructure the government in a manner that it conforms to them?

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Early indications suggest that the Department of Justice will take a laissez faire approach to Colorado and Washington's recent Marijuana law changes. The somewhat tentitive wording suggests that it may represent temporary constituent appeasement.

Both Colorado and Washington broke for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Colorado was considered a swing state. Politically, a different verdict would have sent mixed signals. Some recall Alaska in 1980.

At that time, the "Last Frontier" was the only state allowing both recreational use and private cultivation. When the state refused to criminalize the process, they were threatened with funding cuts. Specifically, "make it illegal or lose your highway money." Alaska didn't buck Uncle Sam!

That was then. But this is a different day. Alaska and Oregon now look to be the next states to legalize. From there, who knows? There are two arguments in play. One is moral. The other is ideological.

Some polls indicate that the majority of America favors legalization. But where are these Americans? Could the percentage be different, state-to-state?

Whether legalization is favored or not, the debate offers the perfect opportunity to distinguish conservatives. In short, a true Constitutionalist may be vehemently opposed to legalization. At the same time, he must admit that, in accordance with the 10th amendment, it is the individual state's call! New Conservatives(Neo-Cons) would never bring the 10th amendment into the debate.

The Marijuana question offers a golden opportunity to define conservatism. On one side is the issue itself. On the other side is the principle of states' rights. To many conservatives, "strict construction" is a thorny subject. We have seen it emerge with other issues. Governor Rick Perry and Senator Rick Santorum's reaction to the New York Gay rights legislation heads the list.

Perry would favor a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But, as he proffered, "New York passed a law allowing it and under the 10th amendment, they have that right." Santorum favored other measures short of the amendment process that would have stymied the action.

Does this make Senator Santorum a "Neo-Con?" Probably. He openly favors intervention from Washington, D.C., on an action that is truly within the state's jurisdiction. This is no different than the ultimatum given to Alaska in 1980 by the federal government. An action thwarting Gay marrage or Marijuana legalization would fall under the the definition of "a large, Washington, D.C. based government," their purpose being "to advance and facilite conserative principles."

The Constitutionalist counter is "good, bad, or indifferent, both are state issues," as defined by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson would have thought so!

"E Pluribus Unum" translated is "from the many, one." As an Obama supporter concluded, "it makes it sound like we are a collection of tiny countries." This can't be right! Can it?

Actually, it is! This is what our founders had in mind when they put the nation together. True, there are members on both sides of the aisle who scoff at such a notion. In some cases, utter contempt is the standard.

What is dangerous about this traditional reasoning is that it both contradicts the mantra of "big government knows best," and it is non-partisan. Democrats, Republicans and Independents can find common ground under the 10th amendment's conclusion that "birds of a feather should flock together."

Not convinced? Remember that infamous Tampa, Tea Party sponsored, Republican debate, September 2012? Governor Perry defended a Texas legislative ruling that waived out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. Santorum was joined by Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney in declaring that Texas' action was the incorrect one. Perry reminded the house that, no matter what they thought in Massachusetts, Minnesota or Pennsylvania, it was Texas' business. And, according to the Constitution, it is!

Conservative champion, Glenn Beck has accused Perry of "job poaching." But the Governor retorts, that "each state is meant to be a laboratory." In short, healthly, self sufficient states get better because they are in competition with each other. No longer is the name of the game, "how much can we procure from the D.C coffers?"

Republicans, even more so than Democrats, are threatened by this posture! It amounts to "downsizing and de-emphasizing" Washington. For D.C. influence peddlers, it would represent a mortal wound. Those "big government conservatives," would fear being left high and dry.

Today, the GOP looks to be facing a choice: "redefine their standard of conservatism or go the way of the Whigs!" Both country and party spoke definitively and decisively in 2008 and 2012. Confirmed was that the "Neo-Con" vision was more in step with that of the Democrats.

In essence, the issue isn't as much about Marijuana as it is, "do the states have the right" to make the call? From our founders' point of view, they do!

So there it is; the ultimate threat to our Washington, D.C. establishment. It is relatively easy to understand why any political candidate, especially a candidate for President of the United States, spouting 10th amendment truisms, is considered a threat.

Therefore, if Rick Perry decides to run for President in 2016, he may use that same argument used against Kaye Baily Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Governors race. For those who remember, Hutchinson went down a list of "things that we(in Washington, D.C.) have done for you."